Jharkhand High Court
Raji Devi @ Rajo Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 25 September, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5293 of 2020
Raji Devi @ Rajo Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
-----
02/25.09.2020 The present bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364/302/201/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S.T. No. 310 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected twice by this Court. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed her prayer for regular bail primarily for the reason that she is in judicial custody since 22.01.2019 and there is no positive progress in the trial. Out of 8 chargesheet witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined who have not stated anything material against the petitioner. The last witness (PW-2) was examined by the trial court on 11.02.2020 and thereafter, no further witness has been examined. Co-accused Lalan Rajak has already been granted regular bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2019 passed in B.A. No. 5819 of 2019 and hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the case of co-accused Lalan Rajak is completely different from the petitioner and other co-accused Raju Ranjan Rajak. It has also surfaced during the investigation that the petitioner having illicit relationship with co-accused Raju Ranjan Rajak due to which her husband was murdered by hiring the contract killers. It is also submitted that the trial of the case is presently held up due to the prevailing situation arising out of Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic. The petitioner has failed to make any fresh ground for reconsideration of her prayer for bail and hence, she may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on merit, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish